1. Field of Invention
The present invention relates to a method and device for controlling player character dialog in a video game. More particularly, it relates to a method and device for controlling video game player character dialog for enhancing video game aesthetics and for making the player character dialog a more heavily weighted component of the video game drama through the use of a specialized input device for controlling, in real-time, said dialog of the video game located on a computer readable storage medium.
2. Description of the Prior Art
Video games for home use were first introduced in the early 1970's. Throughout the 1970's and 1980's the industry saw substantial and profitable growth. However, in the late to mid 1990's and through-out the first decade of the twenty-first century the industry has seen incredible growth, which has made it into a $10 billion industry, rivaling the motion picture industry as the most profitable entertainment industry in the world.
Part of this explosive growth has been a result from moving away from PC-based games to those played on gaming consoles such as Microsoft's X-Box® and Sony's Playstation®, inter alia, as well as online gaming over the Internet. Computer video games require the use of a controller (a type of input device) to interact with the game, which is connected to the video game console or a personal computer, by a cable or some form of wireless transmitting protocol. Although a game controller can be any input device used to control the video game, such as a keyboard or mouse, the more advanced games and gaming systems and consoles usually employ a gamepad, joystick, paddle or any other specialized device designed for gaming, which receives physical input from the game player in control of said device. A game controller (an example of one is shown in FIG. 8) is typically used to govern the movement or actions of a player character (an avatar) within the video or computer game on one a plurality of known computer readable storage mediums. This is most common in “Challenge-Type” games wherein the game is an obstacle course. In these types of games, the game player may be controlling the movements and actions of a player in a war scenario, wherein the game controller permits the game player to choose different weapons from a selection made available to the player by manipulating various buttons and switches on said controller. The player moves his character through a scene firing his weapon against an enemy (typically a non-player character or an “NPC”) who is presented against the game player as an adversary. The desired result (i.e., the “fun” of the game) is for the game player to traverse the obstacle course with his player character within the video game and arrive at an end point of safety, all the while using his skill in marksmanship and physical agility, albeit in a virtual world, to kill, wound or otherwise disable his enemy without getting seriously wounded or killed.
In Challenge-Type games, dialog, which permits some level of interaction or control between encountered characters, is almost non-existent (or at least is not heavily weighted) as the purpose of the game (the “fun” or “interest” that is realized by the game player) is not to interact with others through narration, but instead is the thrill of killing or disabling your opponent before he kills you. This differs dramatically from “Narrative-Type” games wherein the fun or interest for the game player is in the unfolding story and the drama component of the game. That is not to say that some physical encounter will not occur in Narrative-Type games, which requires the game player to incapacitate, injure or kill another character he encounters. It is just that the narrative portion and the drama component that surrounds a character encounter is more heavily weighted in the programming of the game since the game developer is trying to appeal to a different type of game player, game interaction, the so called “aesthetics” of the game.
In prior art video games, especially those that are based on a more heavily weighted Narrative-Type aesthetic, the dialog between the game player character and an encountered character (be it an NPC or another actual game player character in a dual or multi-player game) has been hereto before controlled through the use of dialog trees, like that seen in FIG. 7. A video game dialog tree (or conversation tree) is a video game mechanic, based upon a hub, that provides the game player an opportunity to “choose” what to say from a predefined, and usually very limited, number of choices (i.e., two to five is very common). The game player enters this mode by choosing to speak with an NPC (or when an NPC chooses to speak to the game player's character based on the video game programming). A menu is provided and the game player chooses a line of pre-written dialog from the menu by physically engaging an input device. Upon choosing what to say, the non-player character responds to the player, and either the player is given another choice of what to say, the conversation ends or the desired result is achieved (i.e., a door is opened). The conversation could also end when the player selects a farewell message or when the non-player character ends the conversation because there is nothing left to say. Further, a bad choice could be made by the player character, which ends the conversation and starts a fight, by way of a further example. What is important to note that in the prior art, through the use of dialog trees, the game programmers have decided on what the game player can say. The game player is given no opportunity to inject any emotion by his choice of the limited replies presented to him. Instead of living the drama as a game player, in actuality he is just watching the drama unfold, much like watching a movie. The game player is therefore given no opportunity or inclination to inject his own personality into the dialog through the use of his player character. This has an undesired effect of breaking absolutely, or severely limiting, the believability of the particular conversation and consequently the overall believability of the video game itself.
Almost all prior art video games utilizing dialog trees offer the option to repeat what was said by the non-player character, which allows the game player to replay parts of the conversation in which they did not pay attention to, or simply because they desire to return and “start over.” These types of dialog tree conversations are almost always designed with the tree structure architecture, with players deciding between each branch of dialog to pursue. Game players may then return to an earlier part of the conversation tree and repeat them over and over again, much like a person watching a video movie who rewinds it over and over again to re-watch a portion or portions of the drama that he missed or to which he did not pay attention. Each branch of the tree is essentially a different menu of choices, and each choice that the player makes triggers a response from the non-player character followed by a new or different menu of choices of responses. Video games that employ these dialog tree structures typically lead the game player into “meta-gaming,” a form of “looped” game playing wherein the game player is more engaged, and therefore more interested, in trying to figure out what the game developer expects of him and what he may want him to say or do to achieve a certain goal. The meta-gaming game player is then rewarded in some way, instead of living and experiencing the drama of the encounter, by checking every answer to see where the path leads. He is not engaged and encouraged to just choose one answer based upon how he feels at that moment and then just moving forward without regard or interest in where the other paths lead, a so-called “single pass-through dialog.” Instead he is obsessed in knowing where each branch of the tree will lead him and subsequently detaches himself from the drama component of the game to the point of being a watcher of a movie and not a game player. Momentum in the game is totally destroyed because he is thinking outside of the game and has no inclination of the player character's own (albeit artificial) personality. Further, meta-gaming reduces the reality of the game encounter as real life scenarios almost never provide a person with a choice of responses from a selection of predefined answers only to see where each answer will lead him and then choosing his “best” answer based upon this knowledge for achieving a certain goal or to be given a certain reward. Real life drama contains emotion and almost always requires a person to make a choice based upon how he feels at that moment. This lack of emotion (this “thinking outside of the game”) and the use of tree structure architecture to build character dialog is a severe limitation in prior art video games and especially in those games that are heavily weighted as Narrative-Type games, since the purpose and reason for interest in these games is typically the drama component and momentum of the encounter and how that drama plays out and how that affects the player emotionally. Dialog trees end up creating “simulated” conversation since they permit the game player to hit dead ends and then loop back around until he finds the answer that he thinks will lead him to the next level or prize. Further, the “choice” aspect of answers that the game player is provided with freezes the drama while he decides which branch of the underlying dialog tree he wishes to choose, thereby further destroying the believability of the game. Therefore, improvements are clearly needed in player character encounter dialogs in all video games on computer readable storage mediums and especially in those whose in which the aesthetic framework is more heavily weighted or geared towards a Narrative-Type drama.
Some early attempts to make the character dialog more interactive and “fun,” but still relied on traditional dialog trees, can be seen in X-Men Legends II™ wherein its dialog trees were a bit more complex. In particular, a player could obtain different dialog from a character depending on whether you encountered him/her as an X-Man, a Brotherhood member, or the character in which he or she has special dialog. Still, this did nothing to advance the art past pre-programmed dialog trees and into a realm of introducing emotion and momentum into character encounters by use of an input device, which then affects the outcome of that encounter, and wherein different levels of two opposing emotions can be introduced within a single encounter in order to make the narrative encounter a more integral part of the game drama. The aforementioned prior art game also did not discourage meta-gaming, but instead encouraged a player to engage in such behavior.
Another attempt to expand on character dialog appeared in The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind™, wherein you could choose what to talk about with the NPC's in a dialog tree, including, for example, “Lore,” “Background,” and “Race.” The NPC responses on one topic could include the names of topics that were new to the player character, allowing the player to select these new topics in the dialog with any NPC having a response to that topic. Certain classes (and individuals) had more responses available (i.e., priests would talk more about the gods, while savants would talk about most everything included in the game). However, here again, the game was limited to dialog trees, which encouraged the game player to meta-game and more importantly prohibited the player character from making the character encounter a true integral part of the game drama. No real-time emotional responses could be used to affect the NPC responses, let alone the action of the game, that were not at least pre-programmed by the game developers, which were then severally limited. One can clearly see the common thread and ultimate problem with video games employing dialog trees such as these. The game developer ultimately decides how you, the avatar, or player character, are going to feel and thereby takes away any natural true human trait, which is with us in every personal encounter we have in life—that is to say, emotion. This has the result of seriously reducing game drama as it applies to the narrative aesthetic, severally reducing game momentum and operates to reduce overall interest in such game.
Yet still another attempt to impart emotion into a video game was found in X-Files: The Game™, which allowed the player character to select what kind of emotional response your avatar would give to certain lines in character encounters. Certain events would then change depending on how you decided to respond. For example, if the player character chose an abundant of “paranoid” answers, this may cause a dead body to suddenly twitch or move in the morgue where the player's avatar was located. Although this game attempted to introduce player emotion into the game, it does not rise to the level above and upon the circular nature and severe limitations of dialog trees, like that seen in FIG. 7. This prior art video game also encourages meta-gaming by tempting the game player to see how the different emotions affect the surrounding environment (i.e., “what will happen if I choose this emotion”—classic meta-gaming distraction). All drama of the encounter or event is again lost by the player thinking about “what does the game developer want me to do.” And so therefore, this prior art video game did little to progress the art away from dialog trees and circular character encounters and it certainly failed to move the art towards making the character encounter and the associated dialog of that encounter an integral part of the game drama so that game momentum was retained.
However, further attempts in the prior art are still being made at improving the drama of character dialog, albeit they are falling quite short of imparting true player character emotion into the video game. Such can be seen in the yet to be released video game called Alpha Protocol™. In this game, a spy RPG game, the avatar chooses a handler for his spy mission at the beginning of the game. Based upon the choice of handler, a different set of chat responses or positions will be provided for character encounters. For instance, one handler choice may provide chat responses that are based upon being suave, professional or having an aggressive behavior. Another handler choice may provide chat responses based upon being aggressive, having the ability to bluff or just being honest. Yet another may provide for anger, curiosity or an investigative approach. Yet still another may provide a demanding attitude or friendliness or even being official. Some handler choices, but not all, also provide a quick “end conversation” approach a so-called “shut them up” choice, which is based solely upon action, whereby the avatar will resort to immediate violence. All of these chat responses or positions are timed based during a character encounter and a choice must be made from one of the different responses within the pre-programmed time, set by the game developers, as represented and seen in FIG. 6.
Although certainly considered an improvement over the previous prior art games, wherein the avatar merely chooses from a set of suggested, pre-programmed responses that are listed as “A) B) & C),” the dialog system to be seen in Alpha Protocol™ (know as the “Dynamic Dialogue System”) is really just another traditional dialog tree, with a different visual approach; the underlying mechanics are the same. In other words, the choices that are presented to the avatar are pre-programmed choices that are based upon a specific attitude or emotion that is affiliated with the handler, of whom was chosen at the off-set of the video game or mission, and which were pre-programmed by the game developer. Once chosen, the player character is stuck with those emotions. And so he is unable to affect player encounters, and therefore the dialogs associated therewith, by not being able to choose what emotion he is feeling “right now,” which could then affect the outcome of the player encounter. Even though the avatar is not presented with a specific response that he can see in this recent prior art game, he is provided with a specific pre-programmed emotional response or “attitude,” which is based upon the attributes of his handler (determined by the developer) and he must chose his response against an expiring clock. This does not allow the player to control the emotions of his avatar in a fluid and dynamic manner within each dialog, whereby anger and placation, for example, can be introduced alone, one after another or back and forth, so that specific results can be achieved by the game player through his avatar and which thereby makes the dialog an integral component of the drama of the video game and maintains game momentum. And so it can be seen that the dialog system of Alpha Protocol™ is rooted and programmed following a traditional dialog tree, which is circular in nature (as seen in FIG. 7) and tending to lead to meta-gaming by the game player.
And therefore, it is clearly seen that improvements are needed in character dialog in video game character encounters that truly allows the game player to inject his or her actual emotion in response to the encounter by means of an input device, which then will create heightened drama in these character encounters that are dynamic, fluid and unpredictable and which will allow the narrative aesthetic to be a more integral part of the video game and its drama and which maintains game momentum.